About your Search

20130416
20130424
STATION
MSNBCW 11
CNNW 5
CSPAN 2
LANGUAGE
English 26
Search Results 0 to 25 of about 26 (some duplicates have been removed)
it as enemy combatant, military court. i know john mccain, lindsey graham, couple of others are pushing for that. you need a little more evidence to know whether you can do that. you really have to know, did he become part of the terrorist war against the united states? these e-mails and texts that they're discovering kind of make a pretty good case that he was part of a group that's at war against the united states. if you can make that case, then you could try him in a military court. you could try him in guantanamo bay and not have the spectacle of this trial having to take place in boston or some other place where they would change venue. >> are you sure about military court? as i understand, it was for noncitizens and for foreign nationals. >> if a citizen becomes part of the war effort against the united states -- let's take an example like this. let's take the second world war. let's say an american citizen went to germany and joined the nazi army and invaded the united states, we could try that person in a military court. now, the nature of this war is so ambiguous, you're going
're hearing, it was that lowest threshold. >> now, senator lindsey graham is saying there was misspelled paperwork in the form of misspelled names. which resulted in a failure to follow up these individuals. is it really possible that a simple spelling error may have caused a breakdown in the communication here? >> i -- short answer, i don't know in this case. however, i will tell you that transliteration, in particular from arabic, for example, translated to english, vice versa, at times can cause con nu confusion to the system but not a breakdown. >> the relationship between intelligence agencies here and russia and perhaps a lack of cooperation between the two. >> well, at least through my time in government, with most allied countries and even nominal allies, at the law enforcement level and intel, usually quite good. it's kind of a comrade in arms type approach. there is, however, though, martin, sometimes there are political considerations. we don't know if we have that here. but in this case, if there was something really compelling on the russian side, it brings up the question,
cain, lindsey graham, they are suggesting. >> that could take him out of the american criminal justice system and put him into some other kind of system. it's not quite clear. a military tribunal, perhaps being sent to guantanamo. in any case the obama administration has shown absolutely no interest in that idea and every indication is that he will be tried as a criminal defendant in an american criminal courtroom. >> lindsey graham who himself is a military attorney, has spent 30 years in the u.s. air force, he insists he wants tsarnaev to be tried in american civilian court, but that didn't preclude at least for now naming him an enemy combatant to try to question him to see if there are other bombs out there, other individuals who may be involved. sort of this imminent threat notion. is he on sound legal ground, lindsey graham, when he says, yes, he'll go before a civil trial, but at least for now name him an enemy combatant so he can be questioned? >> well, the obama administration has established a policy of a so-called public safety exception to the miranda rule where for some period of
by using the normal criminal procedures. >> because lindsey graham and others say, yes, he should be tried as a u.s. citizen, should be tried in a u.s. civilian court, but that can await this process of doing some serious interrogation of him and designating him as an enemy combatant in the meantime. all of this is moot right now, because as you know, yesterday, he was formally given his miranda rights and a judge magistrate at his bed side with a court-appointed attorney, a public defender. this is moot as the obama administration has made its decision. is lindsey graham on sound legal ground, saying he should be tried in a civilian court, but held and questioned as an enemy combatant? >> i think the only fair answer to that question is we don't know. because it's never been done before in american history to have some sort of hybrid combatant and criminal proceeding. we do know from jake tapper's reporting, there was an interrogation of tsavraev. and he did disclose his position that there was no broader conspiracy here. just him and his pressure. it seems like the justice department and
are following today along with our top story out of boston. just yesterday senator lindsey graham warned islam is extremists are still a serious threat to our nation. >> our nation is at war, the enemy is radical islam, defined as the taliban, al-qaida, and affiliated groups. the question i have regarding this case, is there any association between these two individuals and the groups i just named to allow enemy combatant status to be conferred upon the suspect in boston. jenna: we now know according to the white house that is not going to happen. senator lindsey graham republican of south carolina is a member of the judiciary committee and stepped out of a hearing to join us. nice to have you back on the program. >> thank you very much. jenna: let's talk a little bit about what you had to say about radical islam. you say yo we need to up our game. what specifically do you mean by upping our game against radical islam. >> the first thing we need to do is reject the narrative of this administration that osama bin laden is dead, the wars are receding and we are all safe. they've been trying to s
court. i know john mccain, lindsey graham, couple of others are pushing for that. you need a little more evidence to know whether you can do that. you really have to know, did he become part of the terrorist war against the united states? these e-mails and texts that they're discovering kind of make a pretty good case that he was part of a group that's at war against the united states. if you can make that case, then you could try him in a military court. you could try him in guantanamo bay and not have the spectacle of this trial having to take place in boston or some other place where they would change venue. >> are you sure about military court? as i understand, it was for noncitizens and for foreign nationals. >> if a citizen becomes part of the war effort against the united states -- let's take an example like this. let's take the second world war. let's say an american citizen went to germany and joined the nazi army and invaded the united states, we could try that person in a military court. now, the nature of this war is so ambiguous, you're going to get a lot of arguments as to
to change. >> lindsey graham is doing a whole bunch of talk radio this morning. it's clear to me, we know why they probably booked all these interviews. because they're worried that this is where the immigration issue could percolate where all of the sudden the connection to boston happens. >> i think it also shows that compared to the last time around in '06 and '07 the republicans who were for this type of legislation are a lot more active in trying to engage with the conservative critics. >> dan, that does seem to be a huge difference before, they would lament maybe to you in interviews. but they wouldn't actively try to fix this. >> yeah. you know, they're pushing forward in a way they weren't before. they're much more confident about the reasons why they're doing this. and they're -- they feel much less defensive about it when they're being criticized by their own people. >> at the press conference amongst the most eloquent were marco rubio. the marco rubio. >> you were there. richard. this was the most fascinating -- >> it's a definition of kumbaya. >> it got those many votes. stick
bell lindsey graham, why isn't he being treated as an enemy combatant? that one to me -- >> what about benghazi? >> shut up. >> stephanie: i'll always have benghazi. it is my terror. no. >> i would never go thirsty again. i'll have another mint julep thank you. >> stephanie: the legal expert i heard this weekend said this is a nonstarter to treat him as enemy combatants. did he a crime on u.s. soil. >> peter king said this. >> i believe -- should be portrayed as enemy combatants. senator mccain, senator graham, senator ayotte, there are so many questions unanswered so many potential links to terrorism here. the battlefield is now in the united states. i believe he is an enemy combatant. ultimately, he will be tried in a civilian court and the statements taken from him cannot be used against him in that trial. right now, the only links we have as much as chechnyan involvement in the islamic movement. are there other conspirators out there? where do they get the radicalization? >> he sounds like pam gellar. might as well grow some gigantic boobs. >> stephanie: run-on sentence please, for
on watching that first-hand. lindsey graham says we need to up our game. we're still at war. now there's the big debate on spending right now. is this the time that to cut homeland security spending or to go after that budget or what is your view on that? because you know for two years now you've been talking about debt and deficit spending. and in this sense it all ties back together. >> well, what's driving our spending and driving our debt is the fact that there are 10,000 baby boomers like me retiring every day. 70,000 this week. 3.5 million this year. social security, medicare, there is no money there in those fund. it has all been spent. people are living longer, accessing medicaid. so the real drivers of the debt primarily are our big entitlement programs that won't survive in their current form unless we make some changes. so it has got, it really has nothing to do with what we call the discretionary spending pot. bill: understood. homeland security spending is not touched? >> we have the sequester because the president won't get serious about solving our big spending problem.
senators includes lindsey graham called for. senator graham challenged them saying the decision they made premature. let's listen. >> here's my concern. as a lawyer for over 30 years, civilian and military, i strongly support the concept that no criminal defendant should ever be required to incriminate themselves while they're in custody of the government. every nation at war should have the ability to defend themselves by gathering intelligence. these are not mutually exclusive concepts. i believe our nation is at war. the enemy is radical islam defined as the taliban, al qaeda, and affiliated groups. the question i have regarding this case, is there any association between these two individuals and the groups i just named, to allow enemy combatant status to be conferred upon the suspect in boston? >> let's drill down on the legal status of the boston bombing suspect. kendall coffey. the great jonathan turley, here in washington. thank you for this. can they decide later if a piece of evidence shows up a week from now, that shows a connection, e-mail, whatever, connection with al qaeda,
. again, on this sunday. mike, thanks. >>> south carolina senator lindsey graham is leading the charge to label the boston marathon suspect an enemy combatant. he explained why on cnn this morning. take a listen. >> when the public safety exception expires and it will soon this man, in my view, should be designated as a potential enemy combatant and we should be allowed to question him for intelligence gathering purposes to find out about future attacks and terrorist organizations that may exist that he has knowledge of and that evidence cannot be used against him in trial. >> the american civil liberties union, aclu, opposes this, "we must not waiver from our tried and true justice system, even in the most difficult of times. denial of rights is un-american and will only make it harder to obtain a fair conviction." how will this play out politically? with me, stephen smith of "the boston globe," dave weigel and lynn sweet of the chicago sun-times. good to see you all on this sunday. lynn, let me start with you here at least. four our republican senators joined in lindsey graham's call
understand senator lindsey graham correctly, is what he was proposing is by making him an enemy combatant, that he would be turned over to the military to be questioned for a period, 30 days, and whatever he said during that 30 days could not be used against him when he gets turned back over for a federal trial. i think that's what he said. you know, which is different than what i think some people thought he meant originally. but anyway, i also thought it was interesting that the defendant is, according to the magistrate, and we have a copy of the transcript from the court hearing today, is that he is alert, mentally competent, and lucid. they did talk to him a little bit. i guess they might have got some information out of him the last day or so, would you expect? >> you know, i think what we have to do here, greta, as you are pointing out, is to separate the whole notion of what would be admissible in a criminal trial. i think there's very little doubt that he will be found guilty in a criminal trial; that he very likely will receive the death penalty. there's a lot of evidence out the
like rubio, on somebody like lindsey graham up for re-election. on somebody even like john mccain and jeff blake. so it's not impossible for this to occur, but it got a whole lot more difficult. >> joy, here's how the "national review" captured rubio's visit there. "it was striking to see how much he is personally admired by the colorful conservative pundits who broadcast on local a.m. stations, and by the biggest syndicated names like limbaugh. they still believe, without a doubt, that he's a top contender for the republican presidential nomination in 2016 and they love that he's already a national force. but when it comes to immigration, they're not buying it." >> yeah. >> why? >> well, because, you know, at the end of the day the o's at the end of rubio's first and last names are quite valuable to the republican party as an avatar for bringing in more hispanic voters. the ideas he's saying are not useful. it's been kind of pathetic to see marco rubio, supposedly this towering figure, latino ronald reagan of the republican party going hat in hand to radio hosts, begging them
an enemy combatant are those republicans, among them john mccain and lindsey graham. but there's others, they say basically he should be treated as an enemy combatant for now and then handed over to civilian authorities. the information we're learning about his inability to communicate right now throws a wrench into a lot of that. but on the other side, we heard today from the chairman of the intelligence committee of the house, mike rogers, and here is his perspective on why he should not be treated like an enemy combatant. >> he's a citizen of the united states. i think that brings all of the protections of the u.s. constitution. under the public safety exception, however, i do believe that the fbi has a period of time to try to determine what threats are there today. we don't know if there's other devices. we don't know if there's other people. i think mirandizing him up front would be a horrible idea. >> so there are really a series of questions there. first, should he be treated as a criminal -- excuse me, as a -- i want to make sure i get it right, as an enemy combatant. that ques
including john mccain and lindsey graham, they have suggested that e he should be treated as an enemy combat t combatant. let me read from the statement just released. the suspect based upon his actions, clearly is a good candidate for enemy combatant sts. we are encouraged to have our team involved and working together intelligence about how these terrible acts were committed and the possible of future attacks. a decision to not read miranda rights to the suspect was sound and in our national security interests. but they go one step further, avery, and say he shouldn't be tried as a normal u.s. citizen but an enemy combatant. what do you say to senator mccain, senator graham, peter king of the house intelligence committee who all four of them have issued this statement? >> respectfully, wolf, this is an american citizen naturalized committing alleged crimes on american soil. there's no question but that this case belongs in an article three a federal district court. the federal courts in boston have an enormous experience in dealing with terrorism. i'm mystified at that kind of statement.
important to people in my state. i think lindsey graham named it well when he called the schumer- mccain. the leadership of those two gentlemen in this process has been outstanding. it was everything i wished i could see since i have been here. when this bill is passed, it it will be a reaffirmation of two incredibly american ideas. the idea we are committed to the rule of law and the idea that we are a nation of immigrants. i would argue that it is those two ideas working together that decade after decade has enabled every generation of americans to invent the future. it is our time in the 21st century to decide whether we are still up to that task, whether we can continue to invent the future not just here, but the entire world. s of tential ourselves to thesei part of moving us forward. i want to thank the people in colorado who told me on how broken immigration system is effect in their lives and their works. the cattle ranchers on the eastern point. the people working in the high- tech field. the people who are the dreamers when i was superintendent of the denver public schools. eac
to achieve with lindsey graham and kelly, that is the most important thing. our priority should be not to punish these perpetrators, not to prosecute them, not to rehabilitate them. our main purpose should be that we have somebody in custody that may know of other terrorist plots and terrorist cells that has information that could save lives. can they get information from them? tell them that he has the right to remain silent and we are going to remain ignorant of the information that he has, even if that means that other people will be killed and a terrorist act in the future. it is a mistaken decision to say that we will remain ignorant. aside from all of the prosecution and issues. we are remaining ignorant right choice. >> officials say the boston bombing suspects are apparently motivated by religion. no terrorist group ties. -- brother's mastermind masterminded the attack. they worked independently. does that change your opinion? >> i have great respect for the media. i spent many years as a journalist. we get things wrong. how do we know? can you tell me who trained them?
, lindsey graham, kelly ayotte, peter king, they released a statement, the suspect, based upon his actions, clearly is a good candidate for enemy combat tant status. we do not want the suspect to remain silent. we have concerns that limiting this investigation to 48 hours and exclusively relying on the public safety exception to miranda could very well be a national security mistake. is this realistic he would be named as an enemy combat talent, denying him rights even though's u.s. citizen, he was naturalized on september 11th of last year and he was arrested in the united states? >> no, this is a deep philosophical division between the obama administration and some of the republican -- sorry about this and what that means is the obama administration has said the criminal justice system can make this work, the criminal can handle national security risks like this person, terrorists have been prosecuted, moussaoui. this administration is committed to using the american courts there are some critics, like senator mccain, like senator graham, who say that's too big a risk, that we have too m
on in this hearing right now between lindsey graham and janet napolitano. we will get into it more later. the gist of it is why didn't we know about tamerlan's trip to russia, given the fact that he had been -- he had been, you know, asked questions already by the fbi, and at one point janet napolitano in this hearing today suggested, well he pinged on the way out. we picked him up on the way out. mike levine sailed he was on a very large watch list not a terror watch list that doesn't have a whole lot of significance. the big thing here, bob is are we doing what we need to be doing in terms of keeping track of people who have been on the radar in this country, or are we throwing up our hands and saying we can't find anything on them so we are done with that. >> this is the third time the fbi has let people slip through their fingers. they interviewed the guy before he went to russia. then he went to russia in an area near chechnya and he was there for six months. at that point it would seem to me it would trigger something, somewhere along the line. martha: you would think. >> this guy has been a
senator lindsey graham, specifically from senator john mccain for the suspect to be treated as an enemy combatant. how is legal action at this point most likely to move forward? >> reporter: well, the obama administration would never go for that, partly as a policy matter. they have made it quite clear that civilian courts are up to the task and they think in many ways better than military tribunals which are untested. civilian courts have convicted lots of terrorism defendants. it will be a federal case. they'll charge him withes with use of a weapons of mass destruction. the maximum penalty is the death penalty. the government will have to decide whether to seek that or not. there's an additional wrinkle here. he is an american citizen. he was a naturalized citizen last year oddly on 9/11 of last year, and there is an open legal question about whether even if the government wanted to, it could declare an american citizen captured on u.s. soil as an enemy combatant. it's an untested question. the government tried to do it in the case of jose padilla several years ago and as that case w
got in terms of a note that was handed to me talking about a few senators, lindsey graham, john mccain, kelly ayotte, congressman peter king, all of whom have said this suspect based on his actions clearly is a good candidate for enemy combatant status. we do not want this suspect to remain silent. talk about that in terms of what prosecutors are doing right now. is that the path down which prosecutors and any investigators are going right now? >> well, it's unclear whether or not they're going down that path to identify and designate him as an enemy combatant but they should at least go down the path to determine whether or not that is the designation they should make for this particular person. then they should do it based on our national security, national interest to determine whether or not identifying him as an enemy combatant will actually enhance our national security and national interest. >> what about the charges? what do you expect them to be against dzhokhar. >> well, if he's not designated as an enemy combat eant he wille charged federally. the first decision has to b
, republican senators lindsey graham, kelly ayotte, congressman peter king a short time ago, issued a statement this morning asking for the suspect to be tried as an enemy combatant. they said, in part, "we do not want the suspect to remain silent." senator chambliss, vice chair of the subcommittee on violence said "i'm disappointed that it appears this administration is once again relying on miranda's public safety exception to gather intelligence which only allows, at best, a 48-hour waiting period that may expire since the suspect has been critically wounded." will there be a public outcry, ed o'keefe, about all that's given, the suspect is a natural citizen? >> with those five senators -- lawmakers, certainly the outcry could potentially be beginning. it's no surprise that that quintet, if you will, is calling for the administration to handle him as what they describe as an enemy combat talent. the obama administration doesn't use that term anymore it allows for an indefinite detention of someone under national security concerns. that's what they are hoping for. we will see what the justice
president obama is calling it terror. lindsey graham sweet twooetieet telling him to remain silent. that would be the last thing. somehow terrorism makes it fine, right? >> we don't really know if this is terrorism. we don't know if there's political motivations. >> we don't know. we have to establish the definition of terror. everybody was terrorized. the political definition is something else. secondly, john ralston said imagine if you're the person subjected to the recriminations you want to put forth. be very careful if something happens in your family and your kid does something and your kid is on the terror list and the no-fly list, that's a different kettle of fish. it's unfamiliar evil versus familiar evil. when you made the point about we've incubated in our own culture a homegrown terrorist, that strikes terror at the heart of america. guess what? hey, ask the minority people, we're familiar with homegrown domestic terrorists. those ain't muslim, they're christian and twisting the cross and doing things. we have to be very careful about assuming that immediately this was
, or was this a conspiracy. that's where our focus is right now. >> i want to play for you what republican senator lindsey graham said after the white house announced earlier in the day that the survivining suspec the 19-year-old, would not be questioned as an enemy combat t combatant. listen to this. >> i'm asking this administration to leave on the table the option, if the evidence warrants, to designate this individual as an enemy combatant. what do we know? we know that these two individuals embrace radical islamist thought, that there's ample evidence this was an attack inspired by radical ideology, they were not trying to rob a bank in boston. >> what do you think about that, congressman? >> well, fifrst thing, i respec the senator's point of view, but i disagree. number one, you have to look at the legal aspect of this. when that provision that you don't have to give miranda rights is used, that -- you have to show a connection to al qaeda. in this situation, we at this point have no connection to al qaeda whatsoever. so the other issue is, this is an american citizen. when you have an american ci
Search Results 0 to 25 of about 26 (some duplicates have been removed)